I can't speak for their policy specifically, but maybe there is a
distinction between MOMA's library and MOMA's collections. Maybe their
library is just that- defined in a strict sense of a general grouping of
books available to look through and study.

I have three books in the Artists Books Collection that got there when
Martha Wilson sold the Franklin Furnace Archive to MoMA. Martha's
collection was more a way of defining a field rather than curating a
collection. I didn't know I was a book artist until she told me I was
one. I thought I was entirely alone in the world making my own books
because I was so frustrated with the mainstream publishing world.

Folks are mightily impressed when I tell them about my presence in MoMA.
It is a little like saying, "Three of his books are in the permanent
collection of the Library of Congress." They don't know that any book
can get in. What do I care if it's diluted? I am a simpleton happy that
I have achieved any recognition at all for what I do. If I were younger
and single, I'd be using this to get score with the ladies.

When I look at what is considered art by curators, and what has been
rejected by them over the years, I tend to prefer Martha's method. It's
a lot more like the historical process. Art survives because of people's
decisions about what is worth holding on to, not curators' decisions.
The definitions and the valuations come later.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Thomas [mailto:ktbooks77@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Hello,
=20
I just read an announcment in the new issue of Book Arts Classifieds